Serial No. 9 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR WP(C) 2557/24 CM 6929/24 M/S KHYBER INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED …Petitioner/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Gautam Chugh, Advocate Mr. Sheikh Umar Farooq, Advocate Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF J AND K ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadiri, Sr. AAG with Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE ORDE R 27.05.2025 1. The instant petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against an order dated 27th April, 2024, passed by State Taxes Officer, Circle “E” Srinagar (STO) purportedly under Section 73 of the J&K GST Act, 2017. Indisputably, the order passed under Section 73 of the J&K GST Act 2017 is appealable before the statutory appellate authority. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner had raised the point of jurisdiction and had also assailed the impugned order passed by State Taxes Officer on the ground that the same had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, we entertained this petition. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. We find that the reply submitted by the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice issued under Section 73(1) of the J&K GST Act, 2017 has not been properly considered. The plea of the petitioner that the State Taxes Officer could not have initiated parallel proceedings after the central audit authority had already adjudicated the proceedings with regard to the same subject matter for the same financial year, has also not been considered and decided by the State Taxes Officer. 3. It has come on record that while uploading the requisite documents in support of the reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner had, inter alia, uploaded audit report prepared by the competent authority under Section 65(6) of the CGST Act, 2017, which too was not considered by the assessing authority. 4. We have gone through the impugned order in its entirety and do not find any reasoning given by the State Taxes Officer in rejecting the submissions made by the petitioner. There is nothing in the impugned order to demonstrate that the documents uploaded by the petitioner were considered and findings recorded thereon by the State Taxes Officer. 5. The order impugned on the face of it is non-speaking and does not spell out any reasons in support of raising the demand of tax. 6. For all these reasons, we find merit in this petition and, by a writ of certiorari, quash the order impugned dated 27th April, 2024 issued by the State Taxes Officer. The matter is remanded back to the State Taxes Officer to consider and decide the matter afresh after providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Petitioner shall be free to file fresh written submissions before the State Taxes Officer supported by documentary evidence within a period of two weeks from today. Needless to say that on receipt of written submissions and the documentary evidence relied upon by the petitioner and after affording opportunity of hearing to both the sides, a fresh reasoned order shall be passed by the State Taxes Officer. 7. The State Taxes Officer shall conclude the proceedings within a period of ‘four weeks’ after the receipt of written submissions and documents from petitioner. (SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE SRINAGAR: 27.05.2025 “SHAHID”